The Claiborne Firm, P.C.

410 E. Bay Street Savannah, Georgia 31401 www.claibornefirm.com

Attorneys at Law

Telephone: 912.236.9559

Facsimile: 912.236.1884 Ruth F. Claiborne - Of Counsel Amy W. Fox - Of Counsel

William R. Claiborne, Savannah Casey L. Reichanadter, Savannah (GA & NY) writer's email: will@claibornefirm.com

MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Stephanie Cutter, City Manager William R. Claiborne, Esq. on behalf of Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment January 31, 2014

On January 22, 2014, Trina Mayes signed an Appeal of Suspension Prior to Dismissal seeking a review of the decision by the Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police Department to terminate her employment. For the following reasons, the decision by Interim Chief Julie Tolbert should be reversed: 1. Det. Mayes did not post a portion of a July 12, 2006, bond for Mr. Sellers. Rather, Mr. Sellers was bonded out on July 18, 2006, by his mother, and only his mother, Patricia Sellers. 2. Det. Mayes did not visit Mr. Sellers in jail, and the jail visitation logs do not show anything to the contrary. 3. The MDBI report contains at least 26 errors of fact. 4. The City Attorneys Memo contains at least 19 errors of fact. 5. Asst. Chief Enochs memo contains at least 7 errors of fact. 6. This matter was investigated in 2007 and Det. Mayes was exonerated. 7. The current investigation is retaliatory for Det. Mayes reporting sexual harassment. 8. Det. Mayes was recently praised for valor and integrity by the SCMPD.

Memo to Stephanie Cutter Re: Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment Page 2 of 8 January 31, 2014 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the Inter-Office Correspondence my client received from Asst. Chief Terry Enoch. This memo lists three alleged policy violations. These policy violations are predicated on two specific allegations: 1) That my client visited William Lamont Sellers on April 10, 2006, April 13, 2006, and April 18, 2006; and 2) That my client posted a portion of a July 12, 2006, bond for William Lamont Sellers. For the reasons detailed below, the two (2) allegations made against Det. Mayes are false, and the decision to terminate her employment must be reversed. 1. Det. Mayes did not post a portion of a July 12, 2006, bond for Mr. Sellers. Rather, Mr. Sellers was bonded out on July 18, 2006, by his mother, and only his mother, Patricia Sellers. The MDBI report to the City Attorney states: On 12/16/2013 the Chatham County Sheriffs Offices Savannah, GA advisedthat Trina Mayes posted a portion of the bond for William Lamont SellersThis bond was posted on July 12, 2006. (Page 12). It is noteworthy that no name is listed for the individual with the CCSO who supposedly provided this information. It is also noteworthy that no documentation of any form is attached to the MDBI report to support their position on this issue. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the jail visitation log that was attached to Internal Affairs Case No. 270308, the 2007 investigation wherein Det. Mayes was previously exonerated in this matter. Exhibit B shows clearly that Patricia Ann (Sellers) Dupont visited Mr. Sellers on July 15, 2006. She is listed on the log as the Mother of Mr. Sellers. Exhibit B also shows that Mr. Sellers was not released from the CCDC until July 18, 2006. Thus, it is not possible for Det. Mayes, or anyone else for that matter, to have bonded out Mr. Sellers on July 12, 2006.

Memo to Stephanie Cutter Re: Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment Page 3 of 8 January 31, 2014 Further, attached hereto as Exhibit C is the completed paperwork for the bond which freed Mr. Sellers. This paperwork is dated July 19, 2006, and is completed by Patricia Sellers and only Patricia Sellers. There is a line for an additional guarantor, but this line is blank. Thus, Det. Mayes did not post the bond for Mr. Sellers, and the MDBI, the City Attorney, the Acting Chief, and the Asst. Chief are incorrect to conclude otherwise. 2. Det. Mayes did not visit Mr. Sellers in jail, and the jail visitation logs do not show anything to the contrary. Det. Mayes has consistently stated that she did not visit Mr. Sellers at the Chatham County Detention Center, yet the MDBI investigators assert that she did. The MDBI report states: These logs (from the CCDC) show that on April 10, 13, & 18, 2006, a Tina Williams (sic) visited Sellers. (Page 4). This statement is false. Exhibit B shows a Tina Wiliams (with one l) listed on the CCDC visitation log. Det. Mayes has never used the name Tina, nor is her maiden name Wiliams. Notwithstanding the clear entry of Wiliams (with one l) on the CCDC log, MDBI, the City Attorney, and the Asst. Chief all repeatedly list the name on the log as Williams (with two ls). The City Attorney even falsely states that the jail log reads Trina Williams on page 5 of his January 9, 2014, memo, whereas the jail log actually reads Tina Wiliams. A quick search of the popular social media website FaceBook reveals at least nine (9) individuals on that site alone with the name Tina Wiliams. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are the Facebook search results for Tina Wiliams. Notwithstanding the fact that the jail log shows the name Tina Wiliams, the MDBI report shows no efforts of any form or fashion to locate anyone with the name Tina Wiliams. Similarly, no efforts appear to have been made to locate anyone with the name Tina Williams, a name that is quite popular.

Memo to Stephanie Cutter Re: Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment Page 4 of 8 January 31, 2014

Rather, MDBI, the City Attorney, and the Asst. Chief have chosen to believe that the entry of the name Tina Wiliams on the jail log must belong to Det. Mayes. Other reasonable conclusions are that a Tina Wiliams in fact visited Mr. Sellers, a Tina Williams in fact visited Mr. Sellers but had her name slightly misspelled, or an unknown person intentionally signed in as Tina Wiliams. Said another way, the name on the jail log is not my clients name. To conclude that it is her name, based upon similarity in the first and last names, is irresponsible. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for you to form a good faith, honest belief that Det. Mayes visited Mr. Sellers in jail as alleged by your investigators and the City Attorney. 3. The MDBI report contains at least 26 errors of fact. The twenty-four (24) page report by MDBI contains at lease twenty-six (26) errors of fact or statements that are directly contradicted by documentary evidence. That is an average of slightly more than one error per page. For example, the report contains the statement that Mr. Sellers was released on a bail co-signed for Det. Mayes. (Page 4). As noted above, this statement is directly contradicted by the actual bond that was posted for Mr. Sellers. This error, or a similar version thereof, appears three (3) times on page 4 alone. The report also states that the jail log reads Williams rather than the actual Wiliams. (Page 4). This error occurs four (4) times on the same page, the suggestion that the error is accidental seems disingenuous. The report states that my client has filed a lawsuit which names the former Chief Willie Lovett and former Capt. Cedric Phillips as defendants. (Page 5). None of these statements is accurate. Det. Mayes has sent an ante litem notice to the City of Savannah. However, the suit cannot be filed until after the EEOC finishes their review of Det. Mayes claims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The report recounts interviews with various members of the McGee family. (Pages 6-7). Several statements made by these individuals are directly contradicted by the January 17, 2006, police report of said events. However, the MDBI investigators fail to note these apparent embellishments and/or misrepresentations

Memo to Stephanie Cutter Re: Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment Page 5 of 8 January 31, 2014 by the family of Det. Mayes ex-husband a group of individuals with deep animosity towards my client. Any suggestion that these embellishments and/or misrepresentations are accidental is disingenuous. The report recounts the William Sellers interview. (Page 10) The second paragraph on that page states that Mr. Sellers stated that sometime during t he later part of 2006 and the beginning of 2007, (Mr. Sellers) became acquainted with (Det. Mayes). This statement is obviously false and incorrect. Det. Mayes acknowledges contact with Mr. Sellers in early 2006. Yet, the MDBI investigators fail to note this. Whether Det. Mayes met and briefly dated Mr. Sellers seven (7) or eight (8) years ago may seem insignificant, but Det. Mayes was not employed by SCMPD until April 24, 2006. Thus, such an error is quite material. As noted above, page 12 states in a conclusory fashion that an unnamed individual with the CCSO informed MDBI that Det. Mayes posted a portion of a July 12, 2006, bond for Mr. Sellers. This statement is false, and it is disturbing that no individual with the CCSO is identified for having provided this (false) information. The report states that the MDBI investigators know that the Ben West prosecution is assigned to ADA Salina Jones. (Page 22). Beyond the simple misspelling of Shalena Jones name, it is disturbing that the MDBI investigators fail to note that one of the investigators interviewed Shalena Jones. This begs the following questions: 1. What did Ms. Jones tell the MDBI investigators that they did not want to include in this report? 2. Why are the MDBI investigators unable or unwilling to correctly spell the name of an employee in the District Attorneys office with whom one of them spoke? 3. At their request Det. Mayes informed the MDBI investigators that several Grand Jurors inquired about the possibility of Capt. Phillips being prosecuted for obstructing the Ben West domestic violence prosecution. Why do the MDBI investigators omit this fact?

Memo to Stephanie Cutter Re: Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment Page 6 of 8 January 31, 2014

In ways large and small, the MDBI report is corrupted by errors of material fact or statements that are directly contradicted by documentary evidence. Thus, the report and its conclusions should be viewed for what it is, an intentional effort to create a basis to fire Det. Mayes. 4. The City Attorneys Memo contains at least 19 errors of fact. The January 9, 2014, memo sent to you by City Attorney W. Brooks Stillwell, Esq. contains at least nineteen (19) errors of material fact or statements that are directly contradicted by documentary evidence. As the Stillwell memo is seven (7) pages long, this memo averages almost three (3) material errors per page. As noted above, page 2 of the Stillwell memo states that the jail logs from April 2006 contain the name Trina Williams. The correct information is that the logs have the name Tina Wiliams. The memo states flatly that Det. Mayes posted a portion of Mr. Sellers bail on July 12, 2006 a statement which is, as noted above, false. (Page 3). The memo recites each of these errors again. (Page 5). It is shocking and disturbing that the City Attorney would have such obvious errors on the only two issues for which my clients employment was terminated. 5. Asst. Chief Enochs memo contains at least 7 errors of fact. As with the MDBI report and the Stillwell memo, the memo drafted by Asst. Chief Enoch is littered with errors. There are no less than seven (7) material errors in this two (2) page memo. The name Wiliams is repeatedly misspelled as Williams. On page 1, the memo states, Williams was listed as a cousin of sellers. It should be noted that Williams is Mayes/McGees maiden name. Thus, the memo intentionally obscures the fact that the name on the jail log is not Williams. Further, and without any support, the claim is made repeatedly on page 2 that Det. Mayes posted a portion of the bond for Mr. Sellers. As has been well demonstrated above, this claim is false.

Memo to Stephanie Cutter Re: Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment Page 7 of 8 January 31, 2014

Then, based upon these factually inaccurate statements, the memo concludes that This type of behavior is inacceptable (sic) and sheds (sic) doubt upon the credibility of law enforcement officers everywhere. What is unacceptable is that my client could possibly lose her job based upon factually incorrect information and an intentional effort to create a case to terminate her employment as direct retaliation for her reporting sexual harassment. 6. This matter was investigated in 2007 and Det. Mayes was exonerated. It is worth noting that the allegations against Det. Mayes regarding the jail visits and bail money were investigated in 2006 and 2007, and Det. Mayes was exonerated in that investigation on July 15, 2008 five and a half years ago. The MDBI report and the City Managers memo claim that the investigation into my client was reopened based solely upon the claim by Mr. Sellers, a felon with numerous convictions, that he and Det. Mayes fled from the police. However, the memo written by Asst. Chief Enoch specifically states that There was no evidence to substantiate the allegation that APO Trina Mayes and Sellers were fleeing and evading the police. Thus, the new investigation cleared my client of the sole basis upon which that investigation was instigated. Creating a new investigation of matters in which my client has already been cleared, to misconstrue and/or overlook evidence in that investigation, and then fire Det. Mayes, is clearly retaliatory. 7. The current investigation is retaliatory for Det. Mayes reporting sexual harassment. As noted above, Det. Mayes was cleared in 2008 for the exact allegations which were re-investigated in 2013. The excuse that an interview of convicted felon Rocky Sellers on WSAV caused this investigation is transparently false especially in light of the fact that no evidence was found to support the claim that Det. Mayes fled the police with Mr. Sellers. The only thing that has changed from July 15, 2008 (when Det. Mayes was first cleared of the allegations) is that Det. Mayes reported that she was sexually harassed by former Chief Willie Lovett and former Capt. Cedric Phillips.

Memo to Stephanie Cutter Re: Trina Mayes Appeal of Termination of Employment Page 8 of 8 January 31, 2014

Further, even if it were found that Det. Mayes had not told the truth regarding these allegations, choosing to fire her would be disproportionate compared to the penalties given to officers who have lied to Internal Affairs. For example, Officer Tamara Jackson-Glover1 lied to IA in two separate investigations, first in 2010 and then again in 2012. In OPS No. 2100929 (2010) it was found that Officer Tamara Jacksons statement contradicts that of every other officer present. Officer Jackson was given no punishment for lying to IA. In OPS No. 2110107 (2012) it was found that Officer Jackson gave contradictory statements in her report about having her weapon out or holstered. This investigation surrounded an incident where Officer Jackson fired her service weapon in a way that endangered the lives of the officers on scene during a traffic stop. Officer Jackson was given a one (1) day suspension for lying to IA. 8. Det. Mayes was recently praised for valor and integrity by the SCMPD. On November 20, 2013, Det. Mayes was honored for her actions surrounding the kidnapping where a perpetrator was barricaded in the Pink House Restaurant. On December 6, 2013, Det. Mayes received her annual performance evaluation (PEP). A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit E. In that evaluation Det. Mayes exceeds expectations in twenty-six (26) categories and meets expectations in ten (10) categories. She needs development on zero (0) categories. Further, on page 6 of the PEP, Sgt. Holmes writes that [Det. Mayes] has integrity and shows a great deal of initiative As her supervisor, Im proud to have her on my team. (Emphasis supplied) Conclusion Therefor, based upon all of the reasons listed above, the decision to terminate Det. Mayes employment with the SCMPD must be reversed.

Officer Jackson-Glover is related to Mayor Edna Jackson. She is the daughter of the Mayors ex-husband.